FACTS:

Cherry Bondoc was charged with kidnapping and failure to return a minor. On October 6, 1989, Lucita Romero Corpuz went to the Manila City Jail to visit her husband and entrusted her daughter, Carla May, to Bondoc while she visited her husband. After fifteen minutes, both Bondoc and Carla May were nowhere to be found. Lucita reported the kidnapping to the Warden of the Manila City Jail and to the Western Police District (WPD). On October 13, 1989, Lucita was informed that Bondoc was arrested for selling Carla May in Herbosa, Tondo. Carla May was then reunited with her mother. Bondoc claimed that she had handed over items to her cousin at the Manila City Jail and agreed to take care of Carla May for a woman she only knew as "Nerrie." Bondoc left with Carla May after waiting for Nerrie who did not return. She brought Carla May to her sister's house and then left for Angeles City where she worked as a cook. She later found out about the kidnapping and reported to the police that Carla May was in her custody. The trial court convicted Bondoc of kidnapping. Bondoc appealed, arguing that her constitutional rights were violated during custodial interrogation, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict her.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the court erred in giving weight to incriminating evidence obtained during the appellant's custodial interrogation without the presence of counsel.

2. Whether the court erred in convicting the appellant of kidnapping based on insufficient evidence, thereby denying her due process and equal protection of the law.

RULING:

1. The court ruled that the appellant's claim of violation of her constitutional rights during custodial interrogation was unfounded. It found that the interrogation was not meant to elicit incriminating statements from the appellant, but rather to clarify certain facts related to the case. The court also found that the appellant voluntarily gave her statement without any coercion or duress.

2. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping. It found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the complainant, established that the appellant took the child without the mother's consent and deliberately failed to return her. The court found the testimony of the complainant to be credible and supported by other evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of the child.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to counsel during custodial interrogation is a fundamental constitutional right, but it does not apply to all situations.

• In determining the sufficiency of evidence, the court evaluates the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony.